During the 2010 NHL entry draft, Oiler fans got together to hear the big announcement: Taylor or Tyler. Over the years, Edmonton has drafted some of the truly exceptional talents in the game's history. Their draft day scouting reports still ring true all these years later.

Barry Fraser talking about Kevin Lowe: "I had him anywhere from 10 to 13 overall. He was the best player available (at 21) a steady defenseman who is good offensively with a penchant for being tough."

Glen Sather about Mark Messier: "He has unlimited potential."

Fraser about Glenn Anderson: "He's very quick, probably the best player (at the Canadian Olympic camp) behind Randy Gregg."

According to this Terry Jones article from March 14, 1979, Edmonton placed Jari Kurri on their negotiation list. This would have been about 15 months before the Oilers drafted him.

Unnamed NHL scout on Grant Fuhr: "He's the best goalie to come out of the draft since John Davidson."

Jeff O'Neill comparing himself to Jason Bonsignore: "Basically the difference between Jason and I is that he's chicken and I'm not. No, seriously, Jason is more of a finesse player and I'm more aggressive."

The question I always ask about scouting reports on draft day is do they reflect the player's ability? The answer is (and always has been) a resounding yes. Scouting reports are exceptional in that they describe a prospect's strengths and weaknesses and do a good job giving the reader and idea about where they might slot on the depth chart.

What don't they tell us?

Scouting reports don't factor in attitude, drive, injuries that will happen down the line, contract squabbles, drug and alcohol problems and (God love them) women. When we read a scouting report from a service (Redline doesn't like to be mentioned with the others but I'd throw ISS in there and Bob McKenzie is the Gold Standard) it does a very good job of creating a line in the sand. As fans, it's our job to document the prospect's progress after he's drafted. Let me use Sam Gagner as an example.

Redline: Plays with drive, determination and hustle. Very smart and heady player who competes hard and hates losing. While not an elite skater, he gets there just fine. Not the biggest dog in the fight, but thrives in traffic and works well in tight space. Slick hands with a quick release snap-shot that keeps defencemen and goaltenders guessing. Can hold the puck too long at times and needs to work on seeing his mates better. Has the ability to play the pivot or wing.

I think that's a fair scouting report, pointing out hiis obvious puck skills and his negatives (size, speed). With that as the backdrop, the clock starts ticking on Gagner's career beginning training camp 2007 fall. He comes in and clocks the competition, makes the team and posts one of the finest offensive seasons in Oiler history. LOTS of positive arrows for Gagner after year one.

Since that day, Gagner's boxcars have run in place (actually they've gone down slightly) and there are rumblings among the fanbase in regard to the young man's future. I think that's reasonable based on the clock we all have in our brains that begins ticking the moment a young prospect becomes a regular. We all have our internal estimates about how much elapsed time it takes for a prospect to turn into a useful player, and four years is a long time for a prospect to post the same numbers year after year.

WHAT ARE THE POSITIVES?

He's survived. Although injuries have been a factor in his career, Gagner has played in 89% of the Oilers games since 2007 fall. He started under the Mandelbaum regime, survived that and the Bermuda triangle that has been the injury bug since Pat Quinn brought the Plague of 1348 with him in a big travelling chest when flying in from Muddy York.

He's become the best 5x5 offensive C on the roster. Gagner's 5x5/60 number was solid and there's evidence that he had emerged as a quality center before Christmas. When injuries fell, and he was assigned to the Swedish rookies (who worked well together but not with Gagner) the ship began to talk on water.

There's a lot of battle in this kid. Despite facing an uphill battle in the season's second half, Gagner showed a lot of try until Ryan (Ron Popiel) Jones did a slicer-dicer on him and ended 89's season. There was some of that in his original scouting report and it showed this season.

DOWNSIDE

The faceoff circle. Gagner's poor numbers in the dot are magnified by an overall team weakness in this area. Gagner and Cogliano have not progressed and although there are varying opinions about the importance of the discipline it's safe to say this is not satisfactory.

The powerplay. Gagner had a poor season with the man advantage, and the Oilers have some tremendous options available. Unless he shows massive improvement, I think he's going to lose his minutes to Linus Omark and others.

Chemistry. Gagner had chem with Penner and Hemsky, but one of them is gone and the other one could be on the way. He had very little chemistry with MP and Omark, so I'm not certain where he fits in the top 6. Should the club decide to run Horcoff next season with Hall and Eberle, Gagner might be spending more time with men like Ryan Jones and Clem Kadiddlehopper.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

Sam Gagner is a slight disappointment for us as Oiler fans based on his draft number and the clock ticking in our brains. This also coincides perfectly with the exact moment when losing organizations often trade good young players. It's a perfect storm and an excellent test for Steve Tambellini. If he trades Gagner this summer, all those at-bats will have been done for another NHL team's benefit. Unless the return is an established NHL player who can help this young team for many years, it would be an unwise move.

Lowetide has been one of the Oilogosphere's shining lights for over a century. You can check him out here at OilersNation and at lowetide.ca. He is also the host of Lowdown with Lowetide weekday mornings 10-noon on TSN 1260.

The Canucks, the Lions and Vancouverites need to get past their sense of entitlement and maybe they could start winning and not act like jack asses too much of the time.

Our beloved Oilers needed in the past to learn that lesson, and they did, but it only took one loss to the Islanders (whom they thought they were ready to beat) to get the plot.

As one poster mentioned, BC is a beautiful place, but living here means you get a bigger dose than is normal or palatable of drug addled, drug damaged, semi-criminal tinfoil hat wearing self-important amoral conspiriatorialists.

As for little Sam, I think people often mistake being one dimensional with inexperience.

It doesn't mean you lose your battles, can't create offense, can only play with certain people, aren't dangerous, play on the perimeter, can't win a face off, can't keep up on the backcheck. Or don't show any year over year improvement.

He was rushed into the league, but has 4 years of coddled experience under his belt. Cogliano has performed similarly, grown more, and played with the dregs.

The Canucks collapse is a perfect example of how a team needs to be very careful who they choose to lead them.

As long as hockey is a contact sport, having enough appropriately sized, aggressive and quick enough players will remain a key to playoff success.

There will always be a FEW exceptions, like Marchand this year, but will he show up every year in the playoffs or have one career year and then zippo - Pavelski, Briere, Gomez, Drury. We need players that will be effective every year in some fashion. If small (and slow) guys don't score what do they bring? Far too often not much. Shout out to Hank and Dank.

Hall is perfect, Eberle maybe because of his history, but after that I wonder - small guys who aren't fast, bigger guys who aren't particularly good scorers or tough, and other than the two mentioned no one is naturally aggressive or dominant enough.

With several players Mike Gillis will want to re-sign or add to his roster, he must be anxious to dump Keith Ballard's $4 mill per year. Now, I'm not exactly thrilled about the idea of helping out the Canucks, but then again, if the price is cheap, and Ballard can return to top 4 pairing form, then this would be a good investment for the Oil.

In your mind would it be worth it if Gagner was traded to nab Couturier, straight across; regardless of which spot it was in the top 8?

Interesting question. I would not make the trade, mostly because the Oilers have invested so much in Gagner and making the trade moves the clock back yet again.

Having said that, I can see why the Oilers might make that deal. ST and company are building around Taylor Hall, and getting both RNH and Couturier in the same draft might solve the C problem for a long time to come.

Plus Gagner is maybe a year away from a big payday (depending on his season).

He can't go anywhere for 6 years. Unless a team gives him an offer sheet... even then, unless it is a 20 year deal for $13M/year, the Oil will match it.

Just thinking he could quickly grow tired of Edmonton and its total lack of something that resembles a commitment to winning. Money won't be the issue, just feel his patience may be. If he's given up on the organization then no amount of money will keep him here.

The Oilers may want to error on the side of caution and expedite this process, i don't see him as someone who'll wait till his 4th season to just barely make the playoffs. One boobie prize every year for the next five yrs won't do it.

If you could move Gagner to the wing I’d do that. There is a scenario’s were I would in fact move Gagner, one would be Gagner the 19th plus Chorney or Plante for Florida’s 1st and Gudbranson or something that can get a deal like that done. There are negatives to Gagners game that nee to be rectified soon, hopefully he has spent the summer training hard, and if Gagner next season mirrors his others, then you really have to consider moving him.

Move Gags to long island with the 19th pick for there 5th and a prospect.
Tavares and Ganger would light it up, there history together would undoubtedly produce points and the oilers could hopefully snag Couturier or a top defenseman